Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I provided evidence, you just didn't like it. I suspect you didn't think I would provide anything at all, so you had to undermine its relevance. I happen to take one of the world's premiere mental health organizations seriously when they state outright that it isn't a mental illness, contrary to what you claimed. You can go ahead and cling to whatever backwards thinking you want, but my position was backed. Don't worry, I get it. It's hard to admit you were wrong.
Alrighty then. You aren't willing to admit that you are making claims that science has yet to determine and I'm not willing to continue this meaningless volley with a complete tool. An impasse it shall be.
Openly serving will create a lot of potential problems for the military. If they need therapy in order to function while serving in the military, they need to be processed out (medical retirement.)
But why or how would it create problems? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't even something that I imagine would come up more than once.
Soldier A: "Are you transgender?"
Soldier B: "yes"
Thanks for admitting that transgender people can serve in the military effectively. It's nice to finally get someone to say as much after all this back and forth.
Lol - I said so in a couple different posts pages and pages ago. Did you miss my comment about those that have come out in the open since Ash Carter's directive have been put in an unfair position? You don't seem to understand my objection, it really and truly is strictly about military readiness - period. An individual person's rights are subservient to military readiness. Military service is not about the service member's rights, its about their responsibilities and obligations. Individual rights get turned in at the recruiter's door.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Sheri Swokowski is a retired Army colonel who served as the human resources director for the Wisconsin National Guard and the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. Forest Service.
I personally think if someone is getting the job done, who cares about the rest. What do you all think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82
The opinion of this 34 year veteran outweighs the opinions of just about everybody in America. Mine included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
I agree. It's obviously possible. It's too bad our President disagrees with people who have served for decades.
But why or how would it create problems? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't even something that I imagine would come up more than once.
Soldier A: "Are you transgender?"
Soldier B: "yes"
The end.
I've explained it already.
Once you open this door (allowing them to openly serve as a transgender folk), military is obligated to pay for every treatment comes with it. You can't deny some people choose to go through that transition while serving in the military. If this is what they choose to do , then they are not compatible with the military.
Medical readiness.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 07-26-2017 at 07:14 PM..
Alrighty then. You aren't willing to admit that you are making claims that science has yet to determine and I'm not willing to continue this meaningless volley with a complete tool. An impasse it shall be.
I have no doubt most of them are good people who just want to serve.
But once you open this door (allowing them to openly serve as a transgender folk), military is obligated to pay for every treatment comes with it. You can't deny some people choose to go through that transaction while serving in the military. If this is what they choose to do , then they are not compatible with the military.
Lol - I said so in a couple different posts pages and pages ago. Did you miss my comment about those that have come out in the open since Ash Carter's directive have been put in an unfair position? You don't seem to understand my objection, it really and truly is strictly about military readiness - period.
Has the military actually said that readiness has been affected by the small number of soldiers going through transition? The number posted here was less than 150 per year. 150 people. Is the US military so pathetic that it can't handle readiness without 150 soldiers? If so, we have much bigger problems.
You can't be an effective killing machine if your dick can't stand at attention. Apparently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
